Evan Burton

I don't give a damn if you believe my claims or not ... I know what I read ... and anyway , you're the one who just said that books can be changed from one edition to the next ..

So if your book is a first edition , like you claimed , then I read this crap in another one of nasa's fairy tale books .

Then it should be a simple job for you to produce evidence of this claim.

There is one thing that Jack understands very well , along with David Percy , Neville Jones and millions of other people , but for some very strange reason with all of your photographic experience , you don't .... and the thing they all understand is that the Apollo photographs are studio fakes and the multiple light sources and multiple shadows were caused by stagelighting .

What I don't understand is why, when there are thousands (tens of thousands?) of professional photographers who do not find any anomalies in the Apollo images, you choose to place your faith in but a small few (less than 10).

I really don't understand why everyone can't see how phony looking they really are ... Some of them are down right laughable they are so faked looking .... Like those silly looking panoramas , for instance ... The 'sun ' is nothing more than a huge spotlight and the mountain backdrops are nothing but painted cardboard ... You would think with nasa's budget they could have produced some more realistic looking photographs .

And your professional basis for this opinion is?

Well if they claim to have brought back soil samples and the spacesuit also , then somone wrote one hell of a fairy tale .

Unfortunatley , I will probavly never find the book I read that day with this strange dialogue and information in it .. and if it was his autobiography , then it has been edited .

Every time your claims are refuted, you seem to intimate that the facts have been changed!

What if I claimed I read a post of yours where you admitted that you were just stirring things up and knew that Apollo really did happen - but it mysteriously disappeared? And I could offer no proof to support my claim?

Would you think it was fair for people to believe my claim?

Or would you think people would read what you had previously said, formed the opinion that you did not believe the Apollo landings happened as recorded, and that I was mistaken in what I had read?

I'm sure you would support the former - as would most everyone.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about quick trips or longer stays .... Deep space radiation is completely detrimental to humans and nasa scientists know this ....

So what you are saying is that exposure duration to a radiation source is irrelevant to possible harm that exposure can do?

That it doesn't matter if you spend 10 seconds or 10 years around a nuclear reactor, it will still be detrimental?

That it doesn't matter if you spend 10 seconds or 10 years in full sunlight, it will still be detrimental?

Did Neil bring back a soil sample ? .... Did he toss his spacesuit out onto the lunar surface ? ... If anyone would know these answers it would be you .... If he didn't return a sample and he didn't bring back his suit , then what I am saying is true .... If not , then someone wrote one hell of a fairy tale about the Apollo 11 mission .

Yes, they brought back both contingency and planned soil samples (as well as 'rocks').

Yes, they threw out their PLSS backpacks (not their suits).

A brief overview of Apollo 11 lunar samples

The LM had triangular windows:

and a rectangular RV window above the CDR's station (shown here in a mockup):

The round window was in the CM:

When I was reading Armstrong's biography in Barnes and Noble when it first came out ( and now seems to have changed text ) I remember reading that Buzz asked Neil where the soil sample was , as it was allegedly the first experiment that Neil did when he hit the lunar surface .

But guess what Neil told Buzz as they were getting ready to blast off the lunar surface ? ... He told him that he forgot about it and left it in the zippered pocket of his spacesuit which he had just tossed out on the lunar surface !!!

Oops too late ... The cabin was repressurized and the boys were suitless , so there was no retrieving the soil sample .

Now if Evan tells me this dialogue is not in Armstrong's biography , then I will know I read this conversation and the other conversation I mentioned before about them taking their scheduled nap , in another book .

I had a look and couldn't find anything. What was mentioned was that Houston had to remind Neil a few times to take the contingency sample; he purposely deviated from the checklist.

Duane, you still have no proof at all for your claim that the biography was changed. This might be true - changes are made to second and third editions for various reasons - but you have not provided any evidence that it has been changed (or why, if it was).

It seems pretty conclusive proof that Jack's claims are incorrect.

Jack, can you refute Dave Greer's post?

So, how many times has Duane been incorrect with his "facts"?

First off, I hope that Joe Trento (author of Prescription for Disaster, and a member of this forum) will make some comments in this thread. I'll alert him to its presence.

For those of you who think they know what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) is all about , they really need to read this eye opener of an article .

Not only did NASA scam the entire world with their bogus Apollo Program , beginning in 1969 , but they are not a civilian space organization , as they have always claimed to be ... NASA is a branch of the US military industrial complex ... and their agenda is not and has never been the "peaceful exploration of space " , but rather military dominance of space at any cost ..

As if man's inhumanity to man is not awful enough on this planet , now these war mongers want to take this horror show out into space .

I disagree. They are a civilian space agency except where "...activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense..."

The determination of which agency has control is determined by the US President.

This is hardly news. It has not been concealed. Military payloads or projects have been carried aboard US spacecraft all the way back to Mercury. Does it make it a "...branch of the US Military-Industrial Complex.."? In some ways, I suppose that is correct; the same could be applied to most any branch of the US government, I suppose.

Did the Soviets make military use of their space programme? Yes.

Have / will the Chinese make military use of their space programme? I think so.

The "... military dominance of space at any cost..." is far-fetched since it is not within their purview. They may have to provide facilities for military use - it does not make them "war mongers". Are the current Russian Space Agency people also "war-mongers"?

I think you are using a 'guilt by association' reason in your statement.

To date, the principal beneficiary of the moon-Mars program is Lockheed Martin, to which NASA awarded a prime contract with a potential value stated at $8.15 billion. Already the world’s largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin’s stock yielded an instant bonanza, rising more than seven percent in the five weeks following NASA’s August 2006 announcement.

The aim of the moon-Mars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statements that "my language"—i.e., English—and not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies."

That is selecting what he said without giving context. He said:

And so, looking into the future of space exploration, I sometimes wonder what languages the explorers and eventual settlers of the Moon and Mars will speak? Will my language be passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies? Or will another, bolder or more persistent culture surpass our efforts and put their own stamp on the predominant lunar society of the far future?

You should read his full address (Partnerships in Space Activities), not just selected words. Determine for yourself what he was trying to say.

The mixing of civilian and military priorities by NASA led to the Challenger disaster of January 31, 1986, an incident which showed how muddled motives and lack of candor in public programs can result in tragedy.

On February 9, 1986, almost two weeks after Challenger was lost, the New York Times published a series of explosive documents, including a memo I had written the previous July—and which I shared with Times science writer Phil Boffey— warning of a possible catastrophe from a flawed O-ring joint. Thus began a cascade of disclosures that included the account of how contractor engineers protested against launching in the cold weather and NASA’s past knowledge of the deficient booster rocket seals.

But it was not until after the presidential commission which investigated the disaster completed its work that I learned why NASA kept flying shuttle missions after the worst damage to date had occurred on the seals during a January 1985 cold-weather flight, a full year before Challenger blew up. It was because a launch commit criterion for joint temperature could interfere with the military flights NASA planned to launch for the Air Force out of Vandenberg Air Force base in California, where the weather tended to be cooler than in Florida. Many of these flights were to carry "Star Wars" experiments in preparation for possible future deployment of "third-generation" nuclear weapons, such as the x-ray laser.

Flying with the O-ring problem was but one of the design compromises made on the shuttle to accommodate the military. These began at the shuttle’s inception, when NASA abandoned a straight-wing design and agreed to a huge 65,000-pound capacity payload bay to launch military satellites. The shuttle orbiter also had to be as lightweight as possible, which accounted in part for the heat-shield tiles that have been so troublesome. This compromise contributed to the loss of Columbia in 2003 from a reentry fuselage burn-through that began with tile damage at liftoff.

I don't know about this "cold weather criterion" that has been mentioned. By all means, there was pressure to launch - possibly due to the State of the Union address due to be given.

It certainly is true that engineers brought their concerns to the fore at the Flight Readiness Review. There had been partial O-ring failures on previous flights, and this was being addressed (albeit not at the priority it should have been given). The engineers at Morton-Thiokol strongly addressed concerns that the launch (WRT the SRB, particularly the field joint) was being launched outside its known data and that the interpolation that formed the basis for a GO decision was invalid.

It is also almost certainly true that NASA pressured MT to give a GO for launch, and that MT in turn pressured the engineers in turn.

To my knowledge, this was not a military decision.

The military involvement in the Shuttle was also known. The OMB cut the budget for Shuttle development, and the only way NASA could produce one was for the US DoD to climb aboard. They were reluctant, and forced NASA to change the design of the Shuttle to incorporate cross-range and payload bay requirements. Perhaps Joe Trento would like to expand on this area.

I'll add some more later.

Good post, Peter. I tend to agree. Any suggestions of 'no planes' or cruise missiles or controlled demolitions, are - IMO - just plain wrong.

If you want to talk about who orchestrated 9/11, then that is a different matter. I don't think it was anything but some type of terrorist organisation, but there other theories which might be credible & deserve investigation / discussion.

The shift in accountability and adherence to the law is once again highlighted with the Extraordinary Rendition revelations. I can understand how a need for such an operation can be rationalised, but it has proven that without proper oversight the provisions will be abused / misused. It is much safer to operate within our legal systems and accept the shackles that those systems impose on us in dealing with terrorist organisations.

Debunk point #2. Original schematics, and plans of the two ships show that the Olympic had a curved outer edge to the wheel house, whilst the Titanic was square. Underwater photographs of the ship show quite plainly that the wheel house is square, ergo the Titanic.

How do we know that those photos are genuine? They could have been faked to cover up the swap.

(Sorry - I just couldn't resist....)

This gives me an idea. I wonder if Larry Silverstein switched the WTC twin towers for two others, wired for demolition and guaranteed to collapse after being hit by, well, whatever was used to hit them.

Somewhere today the real twin towers could still be standing, although you would think that someone would notice.

(TIC)

They are being hidden by holographic projections.....

(/TIC)

A few are genuine. Most of them are disinformation professionals. You really need to check out the Internet Movie Data base forum for the movie JFK. There is a hundred pro Warren Commission posts for every conspiracy post. A lot of them are from the same person using different names too.

See post # 5. You post violates the rules of this forum. Do you actually have any evidence to back your claim? If not I suggest you withdraw it.

Len,

I'm unsure about others but I don't see it that way. For my part, Brian was talking about people in forums in general, and then mentioned the IMDB and JFK. I don't see an accusation on an Education Forum member per se. IMO.

It is the same that if I said most conspiracy theorists were nutty (which I am using purely as an example). I am not directing the comment at a particular forum member or group of forum members. If I narrowed it down to 9/11 groups or JFK groups or Apollo groups, etc, then I might run the risk - but it would be dependent on the post.

If some people believe there are a large number of paid disinformation agents on the internet, they are welcome to hold and voice that opinion. To accuse a forum member of being one of that group is unacceptable unless the person has conclusive (and I do mean conclusive) evidence to the contrary.

Thanks,

There is an interesting video out there, called "Astronauts Gone Wild." This filmmaker (can't recall his name off the top of my head) went around and questioned a bunch of the Apollo astronauts, and his gimmick was to try and get them to swear on the bible that they had gone to the moon. The most interesting part, I thought, was the last astronaut he interviewed (sorry, don't remember his name). This guy kicked him (literally) out of his house and, not realizing the filmmaker had left his microphone on, his grown son was heard to say, "think I should call the CIA and have him whacked?" Seriously, that's exactly what the son said, and he talking only to his father, not trying to make the filmmaker paranoid. It was like something out of a bad movie script.

Don,

I managed to watch the relevant sections through Yahoo video (which was much faster then YouTube for my situation).

I'm afraid that all I see is the typical Mr Sibrel behaviour. Remember how he says to Neil Armstrong something to the effect of 'just swear on the bible and end all the discussion'? Then have a look at Al Bean - he swears on the bible and then Mr Sibrel says he knows for a fact that he (Al Bean) never walked on the Moon. It's a no-win situation for the astronauts; if they swear on the bible they are accused of a falsehood, and if they refuse to accede to Mr Sibrel's demand they are coined as suspicious. It's almost a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Also, I think you should consider Ed Mitchell's sons comment in the context of the interview. Firstly, they were really p-off being subjected to Mr Sibrel's devious tactics. Secondly, Ed's son says something about "having a little fun" after the interview was stopped but before he makes the "waxed" comment. I think he was being both flippant and upset that his father was subjected to this type of ambush.

Notice the common theme from all the astronauts: "No, you're wrong. I walked on (or orbited) the Moon".

How come Mr Sibrel isn't being questioned about his tactics, or the fact that he refers to some footage as being "classified" when it isn't? It was marked as "not for general public" or something like that. That's not classified; it's similar to the term "For Official Use Only". A lot of Apollo reports / technical papers WERE classified during those days but are now freely available. They were classified with regular terms like CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET.

No, no matter what the astronauts said to Mr Sibrel it was going to be used to try and make them look bad.

I'm always fascinated by this image. No matter how much I try, I can NOT get my brain to see both shades of grey as being equal. Despite knowing they are equal, I have to prove it to myself using Photoshop.

I print it out and show people the picture on paper. They swear they are different colours - until you fold it over and place the two squares next to one another.

It is quite handy for winning a drink in the pub!

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem. My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a

Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem. I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is not a significant part of my daily computer activity.

Jack

Jack,

I'm not familiar with Macs, but are you sure it's the OS? I think it would be your browser, not the OS.

I used Netscape 7 for a number of years quite happily. Lately, though, I couldn't log on to online banking, news sites wouldn't work right... and I couldn't upload attachments here anymore (I would just get the "Initializing Attachments" symbol continuously).

I changed to Firefox (which is very similar to my beloved Netscape) and have had no problems anymore.

What browser & version do you currently run? You could download a newer version, or local libraries normally have computer magazines that have software CDs on the cover.

Craig,

Please be careful addressing Jack's knowledge about photographic techniques. If you have specific examples about where you believe Jack is wrong, please detail them (as you said you would in the above post).

Let's all remember - play the ball, not the man. Address the statements, not the poster.

I do agree that saying someone is ignorant of a process, procedure or event is quite acceptable where they do have no knowledge of the field. Where someone, however, does have documented experience in a field and you disagree with them about a matter in that field, you should show why they are wrong rather than claim the person lacks knowledge in that field.

Thanks, Evan...quite a nice comment...what I have been saying all along.

Jack

Just how funny is that comment from the man who gave us this among others:

I may be the only reader of these postings who checks the TIME recorded for each posting.

I have noticed that BURTON, ULMAN, GREER, LAMSON, and COLBY post Apollo messages at all times

of the day and night, and when anyone else posts something, THEY ALL POUNCE ON IT WITHIN

MINUTES EN MASSE, and try to suffocate the truth. It is like they all are huddled around a

computer screen at Apollo Central, waiting for work to do. Don't they have "real jobs"?

How do they have so much time available day and night to spend on their "crusade"? This takes

into account that they are scattered around the world, yet they all spring into action simultaneously.

Duane must have a job, because he only posts once daily for a short period, yet they all attack

him within minutes of any posting.

I am retired, and only have an hour or so between other things to check in occasionally.

They post the same stuff over and over. They must get paid by the word.

Jack

Craig,

Jack was warned about that. There is no sense in raising the matter again.

Duane,

You keep on saying things are obvious - but are they? Have a look at this:

Look at the squares marked A and B. It's obvious that they are a different shade of grey, right? One is nearly white, and the other nearly black, right?

No. They are EXACTLY the same shade. You can print out the image and fold it so that the two squares are next to each other - you'll be surprised.

There is also an online interactive version of this illusion:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_adelson_c...adow/index.html

So if you say something is obvious, you have to back it up with objective evidence. You say Bean is on a fly rig? You have to prove that he is, not just say it is obvious.

Intelligence can surpass scientific credentials

or "expertise". Having a PhD does not make somebody smart.

I tend to agree, but my point is that intelligence will often have nothing to do with being able to assess if something is valid or not. It is the knowledge that counts, not the intelligence.

For instance, a guy produces a bar of light metal and tells you it is Aluminium Alloy 123 with 15% Incredium and can support one million times its own weight.

Can you tell if that is true or not? I couldn't. I'm pretty sure Duane couldn't. A metallurgist or structural engineer, however, probably could - because they have the expertise in that field.

So Duane says he has never seen any "hard scientific evidence" to convince him of the Moon landings - but could he properly assess scientific / technical data and determine if it is valid or not?

... and I have NEVER seen any real hard scientific evidence posted on any of these pro Apollo forums which would have me believe that Apollo astronots really landed on the moon six times ....

Now this is an interesting comment. Based on your lack of scientific credentials, how would you be able to assess if any evidence presented was valid or not?

This is not an ad hom, I'm not saying you are stupid or anything like that, but if you lack expertise in a subject - how can you judge how credible it is?

Duane,

Do NOT refer to another Forum member as a shill.

“Hitler advocated using Darwinism for eugenics and ethnic cleansing. So does the Bush family.”

How ironic that the family that produced George W. Bush advocates eugenics. What went wrong?

LOL! A case, perhaps, for retrospective abortion?

I have stated my position. Only a fool can claim to know how everything began.

I wholeheartedly agree. Where we differ is that I think the scientific community has developed a reasonable theory of events; they are subject to revision as new evidence is discovered.

I am glad (and not a little surprised) to see we agree that religion should remain a separate issue.

Gentlemen,

Please be careful when using the word "deception" or similar when it is in regard to another Forum member (Jack, I note you only used this in reply to another post - this does not apply to you). Being wrong does not necessarily indicate that a poster is being deceptive.

Jack,

If you believe that Craig's images are not being taken under the correct conditions, could you detail the exact conditions required to prove your assertion? If you believe that the conditions cannot be adequately recreated (e.g. must be taken on Moon, airless environment, etc), could you please detail why those conditions are necessary to support your assertion?

Thank you.